"[To] do this to
the right person, to the right extent, at the right time,
with the right motive, and in the right way,
that is not for every one nor is it easy;
wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble."
(Aristotle, Ethics II.9)

In most if not all
organizations, and no matter how hard organizational leaders try to deal with them, problems
just seem to keep cropping up. Even when it appears that an organizational leader has
solved a particular problem, it oftentimes just as quickly reappears, like
weeds in a flower bed!

Cuban (1992) argues that
organizational leaders shouldn't be surprised that problems emerge time and again. The reason that the solution hasn't worked and the same
(or similar) problem
constantly reappears—despite one's most valiant efforts—is that
the organizational leader has not addressed (or, at least, not adequately addressed) the fundamental conflict of values embedded in the problem (what Cuban
calls the "issue"). Thus, when the underlying values come into conflict
again, the
same or similar problem emerges yet another time.

What organizational leaders and followers need to deal with,
Cuban believes, are not
the "problems" but the "issues." That is, functional responsibilities or personality differences that tend to divide
people are not focal; what is focal is the
conflict of values at the heart of those responsibilities and differences. Dealing with these and building a set of
shared values is what promotes the type of "organizational learning"
(DiBella & Nevis, 1998) wherein followers engage in behaviors where
they learn to solve their problems
(McWhinney, Webber, Smith, & Novokowsky, 1997).

By likening "problems"
to "symptoms" and "issues" to "diseases," Cuban's
(1992) insight suggests that organizational
leaders would be better off spending their time attending to the underlying causes
of organizational dysfunction—the fundamental conflict of
values—manifesting themselves in
the problems that plague their organizations. To do so, he asserts, requires
organizational leaders to change how they think about and approach problems in their
organizations.

Reframing "problems" as "dilemmas"...

Problems might be defined as those
recurring and frustrating “glitches” and “snafus” which impede smooth
organizational functioning. They also hinder the process of
achieving personal and professional as well as organizational goals.

When
organizational leaders focus exclusively upon problem solving, they tend to identify and select a technique or
a series of techniques which promise―like elixirs―to solve the problem in the most
efficient and effective manner. To this end, organizational leaders will
spend no small amount of time and money endeavoring to
develop expertise in problem solving. Perhaps they will carefully study trade books,
watch self-help videos, post motivational posters in the office, or
take graduate courses that promise to assist them in their problem-solving
activities by introducing skill sets that have
demonstrated success in a variety of organizational settings. Yet, as the hard lessons of personal
and professional experience have
taught leaders all too frequently and despite all of the promises made, the same or similar problems reappear, forcing
these people to deal with these problems once again. When will
organizational leaders realize that these elixirs are nothing more than
"snake oil"?

Many reasons explain this phenomenon. One
requires that organizational leaders recognize how intentions, circumstances, and
situations vary greatly and what might well have proven itself effective in one
context might prove itself to be equally ineffective in another context. A
second reason can be stated by shifting metaphors. Rather than studying the skills and
techniques associated with "problem solving," organizational leaders can adopt the medical metaphor.
How does this metaphorical shift change organizational leadership thinking? While these leaders may have been successful in
ameliorating the symptoms of the problem, they have provided only a
temporary palliative for the dysfunction. Nothing has really changed; people continue to point the finger of blame at one another and make accusations
about who really is to blame for the now ongoing dismal state of affairs
they were told were now "fixed."

Sergiovanni (1986) explains the problem-solving cycle as a "practice
episode" which organizational leaders can use to learn how better to
lead their organizations. A practice episode consists of three stages:
1) an organizational leader's intentions―what one intends going into the
practice episode; 2) one's actions in leadership practice―the behaviors
one exhibits in the practice episode; and, 3) the outcomes resulting
from the combination of the organizational leader's actions and
intentions―the problems bewailed or solutions celebrated. In so far as
Sergiovanni is concerned, an organizational leader does not solve
problems if one's actions are not congruent with one's intentions (what
Argyris and Schön [1974; 1996] called "Model 1" theory-in-practice),
that is, what one espouses is not how one acts in a practice episode.
When an organizational leader's actions are congruent with one's
intentions (what Argyris and Schön called "Model 2" theory-in-practice)
in a practice episode, it is more likely that problems will be solved,
as this is evidenced in organizational outcomes. Critical in the shift
from a self-protective model of interpersonal behavior to a more open
model is learning and, in practice episodes, the organizational leader's
learning about one's intentions and actions with the goal of making them
more congruent.

In
contrast to a practice episode, an ethical dilemma is defined as a fundamental conflict of values
embedded in (or masked by) and motivating recurring organizational problems. Both alternatives present a positive option―two
"goods"―that, unfortunately, the selection of one forecloses the
possibility of the other. Consider the husband whose wife has just
returned from the hairdresser and asks, "How do you like my haircut, honey?"
The truth is that the husband detests the haircut. Should he tell his wife
the truth―the "good"? Or, to preserve marital harmony―the "good," should the
husband be less-than-forthright?

Additionally, each alternative in a dilemma possesses inherent drawbacks that
the other alternative avoids. Returning to the fictitious husband,
telling the truth will likely lead to hurt feelings and estrangement,
certainly not conducive to marital happiness. Yet, telling a lie is an
affront to the vow of being "true...all the days of my life." A dilemma,
then, requires organizational leaders to deal with the conflicts of values
at the heart of conflicts if organizational leaders are to
solve organizational problems.
Invoking the medical metaphor once again, reframing a "problem" as a "dilemma"
requires leaders to search for and to identify the disease manifesting itself in the
symptoms of organizational dysfunction. To do so, organizational leaders must have the courage to challenge
themselves and their followers as well to identify the problem as well to probe into and
beyond them if they are see clearly the deeper issue that the problem
manifests.

The
impact this reframing can have in organizations is that, over time and with persistence,
followers can learn to engage in purposive behaviors that forge a set of shared values which
will enable them solve their problems on their own (DiBella & Nevis, 1998). To achieve this outcome,
however, requires
not only courage but also the willingness to engage in self-change and to
inculcate virtue in oneself and others. This provides the solid foundation
upon which people can engage in ethical and principled decision making whereby
they solve problems as these emerge because the people involved possess a common purpose
and set of values.

Cuban
(1992) asserts that ameliorating the issue embedded in organizational problems is more likely
to reduce the probability that organizational problems will re-emerge because ethical
leadership (that is, organizational leadership built upon a base of shared purpose and
values) requires a form of compliance that is based upon shared norms (Etzioni,
1975). Over time, Cuban (1992) argues, people will gradually change as they
accept their responsibilities and solve their problems
ethically. In short, putting out fires, though sometimes necessary,
is very different from engaging in fire prevention. Ethical leaders engage
in the latter with the goal being that their followers will engage in the
former.

Ethical dilemmas...

An ethical dilemma emerges in a context of conflict between at least two
goods (values) which require different responses.

The conflict can be simple and straightforward, like a person who makes
conflicting promises. What is that person to do? The conflict
can be more complex, for example, when physicians and families agree that
human life should not be prolonged and that unpreventable pain should not
be tolerated. Just when should life support be withdrawn?
The conflict can also be very complex as Sartre (1957) noted in relating
the story of the student whose brother had been killed in the German
offensive of 1940. The student desired with all of his heart to
avenge his brother's death and to fight the forces he regarded as the
incarnation of evil. But, the student's mother was living with him and he
was her sole consolation in life. The student was torn between two
values. One value was of limited scope but certain efficacy, that
is, personal devotion to his mother. The second value was of wider
scope but uncertain efficacy, that is, offering one's services in an
attempt to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

In
such contexts, an agent views oneself as having ethical principles to
guide the decision-making process toward at least two good acts but doing so is not possible.

The
crucial elements of an ethical dilemma are these: the agent can perform
each action and the agent cannot perform both or all of the actions. Thus, the agent appears to be condemned to ethical failure on at least one
count because no matter what course of conduct the agent selects, this
person will not do what virtue requires, namely, will fail to do something that
the agent ought to do. However, when one of the ethical requirements
overrides another there is no genuine ethical dilemma. So, in
addition to the two elements already mentioned, in order to have a genuine
ethical dilemma, it must also be the case that none of the other
conflicting values can be overridden.

Sartre's story about the student proves instructive in this regard. If the student was certain that he would make a difference in defeating
the Germans, then the obligation to join the military would prevail. But, if the student would make little or no difference whatsoever in the
cause of the French, then his obligation to tend to his mother's needs
would take precedence since there he is virtually certain to be helpful.

Some
ethicists have argued that solving an ethical dilemma involves
hierarchically arranging the resolutions to the conflict of values,
however many there might be. In this scheme, the highest-ordered
resolution always prevails, the second prevails unless it conflicts with
the first, and so on. This scheme is problematic, however, and on at
least two counts. First: it is not credible to assert that values
and the conduct required by them can be so neatly ordered. Keeping
one's promises and not harming others clearly can conflict but it is not
at all clear that one of these resolutions should always prevail
over the other. Second: were it possible to arrange values and the
conduct required by them hierarchically, it is entirely possible that the
same value and resolution can give rise to conflicting obligations (what
ethicists call "symmetrical cases" [Sinnott-Armstrong, 1988]).

William Styron invites his audience to enter just such a context in his
novel, Sophie's Choice. A mother, Sophie, and her two
children are interred in a Nazi concentration camp. A guard informs
Sophie that one child will be killed and the other allowed to live. Her decision will save the life of one child but only by condemning the
other to death. The context is further complicated by the guard who
informs Sophie that, if she chooses neither child, then both will be
killed. This piece of information provides Sophie with an ethically
compelling reason to choose one child; yet, Sophie has equally compelling
reasons to choose to save both. Thus, the value of preserving human
life gives rise to a genuine ethical dilemma.

Ethical dilemmas present organizational leaders with two questions: "What
ought I do?" and "Why ought I do it?" It is likely that different
organizational leaders will select different
resolutions to an ethical dilemma presenting itself depending upon the situation,
intentions, and the circumstances. Because of this
characteristic, some ethicists (Kant, 1971; Mill, 1979; Ross, 1930, 1939)
have argued that ethical theory should not allow for the possibility of a
dilemma. That presupposes, of course, that there exists only one choice
concerning what ought to be done.

Ethical leadership...

Since
conflicts between values cannot be waved away as if they do not exist, ethical leadership, then, involves
learning to reframe problems as dilemmas.
Ethical leadership also requires organizational leaders to mature as their primary
concern ought to be the acquisition of virtue not technique and character
not
expertise. Ethical leaders, then, are those women and men who possess an abiding
interest in forging a shared purpose and set of values among contending
factions of followers in practice episodes, not making them subservient and acquiescent functionaries.

However, doing
so comes at the price of forming what ethicists call "moral residue" (Marcus,
1980; Williams, 1965). Since the stark choices presented by ethical
dilemmas conflict with one another, no matter what course of conduct an
organizational leader chooses, there will be remorse, regret, or guilt
(Greenspan, 1995). These powerful emotions certainly figure
prominently in an ethical dilemma and, rightly so, because the
organizational leader and
followers must
sacrifice one value for another.

Generally speaking, leadership ethics focuses upon making wise decisions in the
organizational context within which
people operate. The negative feelings experienced—the "experiential
component"—when rendering a decision about what must be done in an
ethical dilemma must be questioned because the negative feelings are
based upon the belief that one has done something wrong, and must take responsibility
for it. While these negative feelings are understandable on a
personal level, the decision made—the "cognitive component"—provides the
intellectual justification that supports the decision made and for which
the organizational leader bears personal responsibility.

When
an organizational leader's decision causes harm—and it is quite likely that any decision
made in an ethical dilemma will cause some degree of harm—it is entirely natural that the leader
will wonder
if one is at fault, even if to outsiders it is patently obvious that the
organizational leader bears no ethical responsibility for that harm. Human beings
are not so finely tuned, however, that they can turn powerful emotions on and off
like light switches and water faucets. It is good that human beings
are like this not only because the degree of negative feeling depends very
much upon the agent's perception of ethical responsibility but also
because these negative feelings make agents more cautious about rendering
decisions, more sensitive to duty and responsibility, more empathetic to
the plight of others, and the impact that a leader's decision will have
upon other human beings. It is good, is it not, that organizational leaders consider all
of these facts, too, when making a decision in an ethical dilemma?

Reframing problems as dilemmas offers the possibility that leaders can
build vibrant
and purposive organizations characterized by shared values and genuine human
relationships. Rather than becoming demoralized by an organizational
culture
that is characterized by impersonal rules and functional relationships as well as
ethical minimums, organizational leaders
and followers will exude courage because they are authentic characters not
artificial clones who stand for something—shared ethical principles—rather than standing for
everything.